🚀 go-pugleaf

--------------91E65AAC357C48CB39357DED
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Scout wrote:

>
>
>      "Whizbang" <whizbang@correctopinions.com> wrote in message
>      news:429A9AEE.9F6CCB1B@correctopinions.com...Fine, back to
>      my original argument, since nobody seems to be able to
>      follow a thread .......
>
>      1) a gun that's advertised by its manufacturer as being able
>      to shoot down an aircraft should NOT be classified as having
>      a sporting purpose, as the NRA is trying to do in the state
>      of Illinois, for example.
>
>
>
>      Please cite an advertisement by a manufacturer that their
>      gun can shoot down an aircraft.
>
Barrett Firearms circulated a brochure claiming just that capability for
its 50-cal, until bad PR forced them to shelve it.

>      Second please explain how an advertisement by the
>      manufacturer in any manner controls how the gun is used for
>      sporting purposes.
>
There IS no sporting purpose for a 50-cal gun. None whatsoever.

>
>      2) there's no reason you can't defend yourself with a
>      shotgun or a hunting rifle or a handgun ..... you don't need
>      a gun with a giant clip; if you do, then you're too stupid
>      to own a gun in the first place
>
>
>      Sure, I can defend myself with those, or what I chose to.
>      You, however, have no business telling me what I can and can
>      not defend myself with. Further please explain this "giant
>      clip" of yours. Mine is no larger than those used by the
>      police and if it's good enough for them, then it should be
>      good enough for me.
>
Clips that hold literally dozens of rounds are ridiculous. Again, no
sporting purpose whatsoever.

>
>      3) there is NO record of police or any other authorities
>      using gun purchase records to harass honest citizens,
>
>      Then you better go back and do some research. California did
>      EXACTLY that. Also you might want to research the program
>      "Forward Trace" for another example.
>
In both cases, the intent is to track straw buyers. Did anyone have
their guns confiscated?

>       only to track down those who buy huge amounts of guns to
>      resell to criminals, therefore there's no reason we can't
>      keep gun purchase / background check records around for more
>      than 24 hours
>
>      Except your primus above is flawed, and as such there is
>      every reason not to retain these records.
>
Oh, all the reason in the world. Officials have been able to track down
several gun buyers who purchased large numbers of weapons for resale to
gang members, eg. in Chicago, St. Louis, and South Carolina.

>      As far as you missing something, YEAH ...... assault style
>      weapons are highly favored by gangs ...... they're not
>      designed for sport, only for killing humans, therefore they
>      don't belong in civilian hands.
>
>
>      Except that even the government admits that "assault style
>      weapons" are rarely used by gangs and are under
>      representated in crime satistics. For something you claim
>      aren't used for sporting, they are used largely for exactly
>      that purpose. Your problem is you think you know a lot, you
>      have a lot of emotion but your arguements are hardly
>      informed, educated, thought out, or objective. You don't
>      like certain guns and that's that.
>
My arguments are completely researched. Just last week, the Chicago
police put on display the substantial arsenal they've confiscated from
gang bangers, including assault rifles and Uzis.

>      Further I note your inability to address the issues I raised
>

Uh, hardly. And yes, there are certain guns I don't like. Military style
guns have no place in civilian life, and there's no reason anybody
should be afraid of having their gun registered, if they have nothing to
hide. Only criminals should be afraid of such a process.

http://www.correctopinions.com


--------------91E65AAC357C48CB39357DED
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Scout wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;&nbsp;
<blockquote dir=ltr 
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">"Whizbang"
&lt;<a href="mailto:whizbang@correctopinions.com">whizbang@correctopinions.com</a>>
wrote in message <a href="news:429A9AEE.9F6CCB1B@correctopinions.com">news:429A9AEE.9F6CCB1B@correctopinions.com</a>...Fine,
back to my original argument, since nobody seems to be able to follow a
thread .......
<p>1) a gun that's advertised by its manufacturer as being able to shoot
down an aircraft should NOT be classified as having a sporting purpose,
as the NRA is trying to do in the state of Illinois, for example.
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<p><font color="#FF0000"><font size=-1>Please cite an advertisement by
a manufacturer that their gun can shoot down an aircraft.</font></font></blockquote>
</blockquote>
Barrett Firearms circulated a brochure claiming just that capability for
its 50-cal, until bad PR forced them to shelve it.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<blockquote dir=ltr 
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><font color="#FF0000"><font size=-1>Second
please explain how an advertisement by the manufacturer in any manner controls
how the gun is used for sporting purposes.</font></font></blockquote>
</blockquote>
There IS no sporting purpose for a 50-cal gun. None whatsoever.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<blockquote dir=ltr 
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">&nbsp;
<br>2) there's no reason you can't defend yourself with a shotgun or a
hunting rifle or a handgun ..... you don't need a gun with a giant clip;
if you do, then you're too stupid to own a gun in the first place
<br>&nbsp;
<p><font color="#FF0000"><font size=-1>Sure, I can defend myself with those,
or what I chose to. You, however, have no business telling me what I can
and can not defend myself with. Further please explain this "giant clip"
of yours. Mine is no larger than those used by the police and if it's good
enough for them, then it should be good enough for me.</font></font></blockquote>
</blockquote>
Clips that hold literally dozens of rounds are ridiculous. Again, no sporting
purpose whatsoever.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<blockquote dir=ltr 
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><font color="#FF0000"><font size=-1></font></font>&nbsp;
<br>3) there is NO record of police or any other authorities using gun
purchase records to harass honest citizens,
<p><font color="#FF0000"><font size=-1>Then you better go back and do some
research. California did EXACTLY that. Also you might want to research
the program "Forward Trace" for another example.</font></font></blockquote>
</blockquote>
In both cases, the intent is to track straw buyers. Did anyone have their
guns confiscated?
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<blockquote dir=ltr 
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">&nbsp;only
to track down those who buy huge amounts of guns to resell to criminals,
therefore there's no reason we can't keep gun purchase / background check
records around for more than 24 hours
<p><font color="#FF0000"><font size=-1>Except your primus above is flawed,
and as such there is every reason not to retain these records.</font></font></blockquote>
</blockquote>
Oh, all the reason in the world. Officials have been able to track down
several gun buyers who purchased large numbers of weapons for resale to
gang members, eg. in Chicago, St. Louis, and South Carolina.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<blockquote dir=ltr 
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">As
far as you missing something, YEAH ...... assault style weapons are highly
favored by gangs ...... they're not designed for sport, only for killing
humans, therefore they don't belong in civilian hands.
<br>&nbsp;
<p><font color="#FF0000"><font size=-1>Except that even the government
admits that "assault style weapons" are rarely used by gangs and are under
representated in crime satistics. For something you claim aren't used for
sporting, they are used largely for exactly that purpose. Your problem
is you think you know a lot, you have a lot of emotion but your arguements
are hardly informed, educated, thought out, or objective. You don't like
certain guns and that's that.</font></font></blockquote>
</blockquote>
My arguments are completely researched. Just last week, the Chicago police
put on display the substantial arsenal they've confiscated from gang bangers,
including assault rifles and Uzis.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<blockquote dir=ltr 
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><font color="#FF0000"><font size=-1>Further
I note your inability to address the issues I raised</font></font></blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p><br>Uh, hardly. And yes, there are certain guns I don't like. Military
style guns have no place in civilian life, and there's no reason anybody
should be afraid of having their gun registered, if they have nothing to
hide. Only criminals should be afraid of such a process.
<p><A HREF="http://www.correctopinions.com">http://www.correctopinions.com</A>
<br>&nbsp;
</body>
</html>

--------------91E65AAC357C48CB39357DED--